← Κύπρος

clr/1979/1979_3_364.pdf

(1979)1979 July 19 [STAVRINIDES, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION ARISTIDES KONSTANTI, Applicant, and THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTER OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL INSURANCE AND ANOTHER, Respondents. {Case No. 248/68). Social Insurance—Contribution conditions—Insurance card—Delayed exchange—Effect—Section 13
(3)(
  1. d)of the Social Insurance Laws, 1964 to 1968—It automatically applies when a person becomes insured—See section 9 of the Social Insurance Law, 1964 (Law 2 of 1964). 5 Administrative Law—Composite administrative process—Is one consisting of more than one act or decision, each of which is in itself executory—Insurance process under the Social Insurance Laws, 1964 to 1968—Is not a composite administrative process—The only executory act or decision on the part of the administration 10 being the acceptance or rejection of the application madefor the purpose. Social Insurance—Process of insurance—Whether a composite administrative process—Social Insurance Laws, 1964 to 1968. Statutes—Supervi v'ng Law—Unless there is anything to the contrary therein its opi 'ation extends to matters pending for decision at the time of its enactment—Section 3 of the Social Insurance (Amendment) Las . 1968 (Law 28/68) has such operation. On March 13, 1968, the applicant applied to the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance for insurance as a seif-employcd person, under the Social Insurance Laws, 1964 to 1966. On 364 15 20 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Konstanti v. Republic April 18, 1968he was informed by a letter* that his application had been approved and he was advised to bring 185 social insurance stamps for the settlement of the contributions which he owed from October 5, 1964,until April 20, 1968. In this letter applicant was further informed that under the Social Insurance (Amendment) Law, 1968** contributions paid later than three months from the end of the year of contributions to which they related were not taken into account for the purpose of benefits, . except contributions which were due in respect of the twelve months preceding the date of their payment; and that he would he able to get a pension from March 20, 1970,provided that he continued contributing without default until the said date. On May 4, 1968 the applicant, through his advocate, applied for a revision of the above decision and for the grant of old-age pension to him from March 20, 1967. The respondent replied by a letter dated the 14thMay, 1968,that the decision could not be revised because it wastaken under section 3of the Social Insurance (Amendment) Law, 1968 (Law 28 of 1968). Hence this recourse for a declaration that -'the decisions and/or acts of the respondent dated April 18, 1968, and May 14, 1968, for the non-grant of an old-age pension to theapplicant arc invalid and devoid of legal effect." Counsel for the applicant contended: (
  2. a)That section 13
(3)(
  1. d)of the Social Insurance Laws 1964to 1968did not affect the applicant's case because it applied solely to cases where an insurance card had been issued and here no such card had been issued; (
  2. b)that the Social Insurance (Amendment) Law, 1968 (Law 28/68) did not apply in this case, because the application for insurance had been made before the enactment of that Law. Counselargued inthisconnection that theprocessof insurance is a "composite administrative process." • Quoted in full at p. 367 post. ** The relevant section is section 13
(3)(
  1. d)of the Social Insurance Laws 19641968 which provides as follows: " Contributions on an insurance card exchanged later than threemonths from the date of expiry of its validity or any contributions exchanged later than three months from theexpiry of the year of contributions to which they relate do not count for the purposes of the contribution condition in sub-para, (
  2. a)of paras. 1,2 and 3 of Schedule 6 except in so far as they are regarded by viitue of para. 4 of the said Schedule as having been paid." 365 Konstanti v. Republic
(1979)Held,
(1)that under section 9 of the Social Insurance Law, 1964 an insurance card is issued to every insured person; that, therefore, on the applicant becoming insured para, (d) of section 13
(3)automatically became applicable to him; and, that, accordingly, contention (a) must fail. 5
(2)That the process of insurance isnot a "composite administrative process"; that a "composite administrative process" is one consisting of more than one act or decision, each of which is in itself executory; that in the process of a person becoming insured the only executory act or decision on the part of the 10 administration is acceptance or rejection of the application made for the purpose; that here the only executory element in the process was the decision conveyed by the letter of the 18th April, 1968 viz. the acceptance of the application for insurance, the later letter not being part of that process, but simply a reply 15 explaining paras. 2 and 3 of the first letter; that even if it were otherwise the applicant's rights to insurance were subject to the 1968 Law (see Lordouv. Republic
(1968)3C.L.R. 427, where it was decided that unless there is anything to the contrary in a supervening Law, its operation extends to matters pending for 20 decision at the time of its enactment); that here there is nothing to suggest that it wasintended that theamendment tos. 13
(3)of the 1964 Law should not have such operation; and that, accordingly, contention (b) must fail. Application dismissed. 25 Cases referred to: Lordouv. Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 427. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent not to grant old age pension to the applicant. 30 L. Papaphilippou, for the applicant. L. Loucaides, Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. STAVRINIDES J. read the following judgment. On March 13, 35 1968, the applicant applied to the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance for insurance under the Social Insurance Laws, 1964 and 1966, as a self-employed person. On the 366 3 C.L.R. Konstanti v. Republic ' Stavrinides J. following April 15 the Ministry informed him orally that his application had been approved and called upon him to pay all the contributions payable under that Law, which he did on the 18th of that month. _ On this last-mentioned date the Ministry 5 wrote to the applicant as follows (exh. 1): 10 15 20 25 30 " You are informed that your application for insurance as a self-employed person has been approved and you are advisedtopresentyourselfassoonaspossibleattheLabour Office, Nicosia, bringing with you this letter and 185social insurance stamps for the settlement of the contributions which you owe from October 5, 1964, until April 20, 1968. Under the Social Insurance (Amendment) Law, 1968, contributions paid later than three months from the end of theyear of contributions to which they relateare not taken into account for the purpose of benefits, except contributions which are due in respect of the twelve months precedingthe date of their payment. If, however, you pay your outstanding contributions within fifteen days from today the contributions which relate to the period from March 20, 1967,and thereafter, i.e. for the hfty-two weeks before the date of submission of your application, will be taken into account for the purpose of pensions [sic, wrong for the singular] and thus you will be able to get a pension from March 20, 1970, provided that you continue contributing without default until the said date. If, however, you do not pay your contributions within fifteen days, for pension purposes only the contributions which relate to the fifty-two weeks preceding the date of their payment will be taken into account and thus you will be entitled to a pension after the lapse of 104 weeks from the date of payment of your contributions." On the following May 4-the applicant through his advocate wrote to the Ministry a letter (exh.3),which reads: 35 " On the instructions of my client Aristides Constanti, of Kato Mylos, Limassol ins. No. 165386, identity card No. 16157, you are requested to revise your decision dated April 18, 1968, for the grant of an old age pension from March 20, 1970, so that he may start receiving a pension from March 20, 1967. 367 Stavrinides J. Konstanti v. Republic (1979 In addition I encluse: (
  1. a)the application for an old age pension; (
  2. b)insurance card No. 165386; (
  3. c)a certificate from the chairman of the community of K. Mylos; and 5 (
  4. d)a certificate from the priest of the community of K. Mylos." To this the Ministry replied by a letter dated the 14th of the same month (exh. 2), which reads: "With reference to your letter under file No. El 17/68 of May 4, 1968, in connection with the date of grant of a pension to your client Aristides Constanti, of K. Mylos, Limassol, I inform you that the decision of the Insurance Officer for the grant of an old age pension to Constanti from March 20, 1970, cannot be revised because it was taken under s. 3 of the Social Insurance (Amendment) Law, 28 of 1968. By the above section it is clearly provided that contributions paid later than three months from the end of the year of contributions to which they relate are not taken into account for purposes of benefits, except contributions which are due in respect of the twelve months preceding the date of their payment. In the case of your client he paid all the contributions due to the Social Insurance Fund on April 16, 1968. In view of the foregoing I return to you Constant's application for the grant of an old age pension, as also his insurance card for the year of contribution 1967-69." By this application the applicant asks for a declaration that " the decisions and/or acts of the respondent dated April 30 18, 1968, and May 14, 1968, for the non-grant of an old age pension to the applicant are invalid and devoid of legal effect". By s. 24 of the Social Insurance Law, 1964, as amended by the Social Insurance (Amendment) Law, 1966,it isprovided that 35 " Subject to the provisions of this Law, a person is entitled to an old age pension if— 368 10 15 20 25 3 C.L.R. Konstanti v. Republic Stavrinides J. • (
  5. a)he has completed the pensionable age, 5 (
  6. b)he fulfils the relevant conditions as to contribution; or [sc. 'if'] he does not fulfil these conditions, from the first day on which he later fulfils the conditions in question. The allusion in the second paragraph of the letter exh. 1is to s. 13
(3)(
  1. d)of the Social Insurance Laws 1964 to 1968, which reads: 10 15 20 25 30 35 " Contributions on an insurance card exchanged later than three months from the date of expiry of its validity or any contributions exchanged later than three months from the expiry of the year of contributions to which they relate do not count for the purposes of the contribution condition in sub-para, (
  2. a)of paras. 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 6 except in so far as they are regarded by virtue of para. 4 of the said Schedule as having been paid." Mr. Papaphilippou for the applicant argued that "the 1968 Law [meaning the provision just quoted] did not affect his client's position, because it applies [solely] to cases where an insurance card had been issued", and here no such card had been issued. This argument overlooks s. 9 of the 1964 Law, which provides that an insurance card is issued to every insured person, so that on the applicant becoming insured para, (
  3. d)of s. 13
(3)automatically became applicable to him. But counsel for the applicant further argued that the 1968 Law does not apply in this case, because the application for insurance had been made before the enactment of that Law. In this connection he maintains that the process of insurance is a "composite administrative process". In my judgment this is not so. A "composite administrative process" is one consisting of more than one act or decision, each of which is in itself executory. In the process of a person becoming insured the only executory act or decision on the part of administration is acceptance or rejection of the application made for the purpose. Here the only executory element in the process was the decision conveyed by the letter exh. 1,viz. the acceptance of the application for insurance, the later letter, exh. 2, not being part of that process, but simply a reply explaining paras. 2and 3 of the letter exh. 1. But even if it were otherwise the case of Lordou v. 369 Stavrinides J. (Constant! v. Republic
(1979)Republic,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 427, shows that the applicant'srights to insurance weresubject tothe 1968Law;for, according to the judgment in that case, unless there is anything to the contrary in a supervening Law, its operation extends to matters pending for decision at the time of its enactment. Here there is nothing 5 tosuggest that it wasintended that theamendment to s. 13
(3)of the 1964 Law should not have such operation. For the reasons given this application fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Application dismissed. No order 10 as tocosts. 370 *

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.